Philosophy

#Philosophy

Used to categorize content that explores fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, and reasoning. Discussions under this tag may encompass topics such as ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, logic, and aesthetics. This tag may also cover topics around various philosophical schools of thought and their relevance to contemporary issues and challenges. The content under this tag may be relevant for students, academics, and anyone interested in exploring the deeper aspects of human experience and the nature of reality.

Total topics: 48

Look at the reality we are in. Think hard who is rewarded more. God can't be a worship hungry narcissist, it must be another psyche-type of deity.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
56 9
This is Norman Wildberger's personal website where he expresses his unusual opinions: https://njwildberger.com/

There is a lot to unpack here, so I'll highlight a few important things:

  1. Debate with Daniel Rubin: He links to this on the homepage of his website. Rubin was incredibly respectful of Wildberger's ideas, ideas which I suspect most mathematicians would dismiss as nonsense pretty quickly. I appreciate that Rubin was willing to do this, because while I do not agree with Wildberger, it only grants more credibility to conspiratorial quacks when they are ignored by experts. One issue with this "debate", however, is that Rubin gave Wildberger most of the talking time and did not push back very much. He did, however, outline his objections more clearly in another video, which Wildberger neglected to link to or mention on his website. (At least that I could find. Feel free to correct me on this.) It can be found at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnepxZ-ZZOI
  2. Modern math compared to religion: Wildberger asserts that modern math is in some sense religious, believing in things on the grounds of faith alone. I might respect his objections a bit more if he didn't do this, since many of his other objections are at least understandable, but this assertion that mathematicians so desperately want their beliefs to be true, and that they don't have any real arguments is absurd, and potentially harmful. The assertion is baseless, and it paints mathematicians as complete fools, rather than the geniuses that many of them are.
  3. Conspiratorial wording: Wildberger uses a lot of conspiratorial wording such as "delusion" and "blindly accept." In this way, he appeals to people who are conspiratorially minded, and who want to feel like they are smarter than the experts. This idea of a widespread delusion is simply nonsense. Mathematicians do not blindly accept statements such as "...and then taking this to infinity..." and they frequently question the meaning of this sort of statement when applied to a context in which it has no formal definition or where its application cannot be justified. They don't simply search for evidence which agrees with their preconceived notions (as Wildberger would suggest) either. Take, for example this paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/1208.0009v4.pdf. A mathematician as described by Wildberger would blindly accept its conclusions, nodding their heads every time "as n goes to infinity" is mentioned. In the real world, however, any credible source will tell you that the problems that this article claims to solve remain unsolved. This is because a real mathematicians questions the use of limits in this paper, and recognizes it as invalid.
  4. The impact of Wildberger's conspiratorial wording: This is what really caused me to lose any remaining respect I had for Wildberger. Many of his followers hold the belief that modern math is a complete waste of time that does nothing for society. A trip to fantasy land that mathematicians get paid to take. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, it makes it seem as though mathematicians don't actually do anything, negating the sheer amount of work and effort that math takes. Secondly, it has lead many of his followers to believe that if mathematicians could only wake up, our technology would be drastically better, and millions of lives could be saved. (One look at the comments on one of his posts reveals just how many of them believe all of these things.) The irony in this is that without the concepts that Wildberger rejects, he wouldn't be making these blog posts on a computer, nor would we understand nearly anything of what we do today about the universe. Switching to Wildberger's ultrafinist math would kill, not save millions.
  5. "Are mathematicians scientists?": The short answer is no. They aren't supposed to be. Science uses inductive reasoning. Math uses deductive reasoning. Science can change with new evidence. Math is not evidence based, and proofs are set in stone. Science uses experimentation to draw conclusions. Math uses abstract deductive proofs. Science is observation based. Math is done in the abstract, and you can't observe abstract objects in the same way that you can observe physical ones. According to Wildberger, however, the approach of science is the only valid one. This completely misses the point of math, which brings us to my next point.
  6. Model vs. match: Mathematicians do not assert their axioms as objective truths. Math is not intended to be part of the physical world. Math, like any field of study, should be judged by its usefulness, regardless of how that usefulness arises. Math allows us to model things in reality, but it is not itself part of physical reality. It is a model, not a match, and that is the way it is supposed to be. This is because the physical world can be somewhat of an enigma. In theory, we shouldn't be able to make any predictions at all, because we don't know, for example, that just because F = ma this one time, that F will equal ma the next time we apply force to an object. The equation "F = ma" wasn't found in some deep dark cave signed "Creator of the Universe," we just observed that this equation is consistent with our observations. This is the beauty of math: Our mathematical models can make predictions about something without us actually needing to see it. That is why math is not observation based. Because that would defeat the purpose. Sure, the fact that math exists separately from the physical world means that it doesn't always match the physical world, but that is okay. No one is claiming that everything in math has a counterpart in reality.
  7. The law of (logical) honesty: Wildberger's law of honesty is a good one. The issue is that it is a moral principle, not a logical one. Not pretending to do something you can't is good life advice, but for the sake of logic, considering theoreticals is incredibly important and useful, and there is no problem with it. Wildberger says that this law of honesty invalidates a question such as "If you could jump to the moon, would it hurt?" I have no issue answering this question: Yes, it would. In fact, you would definitely die. You would accelerate incredibly quickly through the earth's atmosphere and into space, and if you weren't already dead, you would find yourself in the vacuum of space where your blood would boil. Wildberger would suggest that this wouldn't happen, because no one can jump to the moon anyway. My response to this is that it is possible to talk about what would happen if one were to jump to the moon, even if that won't happen. Why is it important to be able to use theoreticals though? No one really cares about what would happen if they could jump to the moon, but considering theoreticals can be very important. Wildberger agrees that it has been proven that there is no rational number equal to the square-root of 2. What exactly is this proof? Well, feel free to look it up if you want the details, but to summarize, it begins by assuming that the square-root of 2 can be written as a fraction, and demonstrates that this leads to a logical contradiction. That's right, we are not only imagining that we can do something that we can't, but we are using that assumption to prove that we can't by showing that it leads to a logical contradiction. It is undeniable that if the assumption that something can be done leads to a logical contradiction, it cannot be done, and yet under Wildberger's "law of honesty" (at least as he applies it) this sort of proof by contradiction is invalid.
Obviously, this does not address everything that Wildberger has to say, as he has said a lot, so if there is something specific that you want me to address, feel free to point it out.

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Miscellaneous
2 2
  1. Suffering is that which one is inclined to avoid. It is subjective, and varies based on a person's preferences and attitude.
  2. By embracing suffering and accepting it as a challenge, we eliminate suffering.
  3. Meaning is subjective and not inherent, but by rebelling against the meaningless suffering of our lives, we create our own meaning.
  4. Every situation is just another opportunity. We should not dwell on past mistakes, but rather consider them a part of the challenge, opportunity, and meaning of our current situation.
  5. We cannot always succeed, so we must instead accept that the reason we try, even in the most dire situations, is not for the sake of success, but for the sake of the attempt itself.
The above is a concept for a life philosophy with roots in Absurdism, Optimistic Nihilism, and even somewhat Buddhism. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
18 6
Most people don't seem to think about consent in regards to childbirth, but it's quite a serious issue.

Everyone who was ever born did not give consent to be alive. 

The largest issue with this is that if someone has a miserable life, perhaps even ending up killing themselves and regretting the whole ordeal, that would not only be: 1) a bad life, but 2) one that was imposed upon them. There are many variations of bad lives, too: toddlers getting cancer and dying at the age of 4, double amputation required at the 7 leading to death, being abandoned by both parents and being bashed every day by adopted parents etc. In short, there are plenty of lives we can look at and say, 'that wouldn't be a desirable life to live at all', and this is made worse by the fact that this life was forced upon them without consent.

It's also ethically dubious to bring people into existence, even if their life ends up being great. The ethical problem is that a great life isn't guaranteed, whereas suffering is. So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent, and winning the gamble. 

Even in it's simplest form, bringing people into existence is done without consent, so there is that issue, too.

I haven't ever seen a coherent, logically constructed argument that addresses this large ethical issue. I would love to read what people think.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
61 9
Topic Description:
I would like to build a strong understanding of the ideas and beliefs related to the subject religion.


Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
  • NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
  • Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
  • Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
  • Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
  • Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
  • Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
  • Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
  • Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.



Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
136 9
Topic Description:
I would like to build a strong understanding of the ideas and theories related to the subject philosophy.


Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
  • NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
  • Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
  • Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
  • Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
  • Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
  • Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
  • Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
  • Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.




Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
3 1
Topic Description:
I would like to build a strong understanding of the ideas and beliefs related to the subject religion.


Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
  • NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
  • Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
  • Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
  • Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
  • Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
  • Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
  • Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
  • Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.


Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
3 1
A few questions to ponder and discuss:

  1.  Does the past exist?
  2. Does the future exist?
  3. Do abstractions exist?
  4. Do thoughts exist?
  5. If something will never be observed, does it exist?
  6. If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
63 15
The recent forum topic on solipsism got me thinking about this. Last-Thursdayism is a belief (which, to my knowledge, no one actually holds) that the universe,  everything within it, including our memories, popped into existence last Thursday. Similar to solipsism, you apparently cannot prove it wrong, as one cannot prove that anything exists outside of their own mind and experiences, right here, right now. Here's an interesting variant: Imagine there was a group of people that believed that the universe was created last Thursday at noon, and would end next Thursday at noon. It seems as though come next Thursday they would be proven wrong, but they wouldn't. Instead, come noon on Thursday they would celebrate the beginning of the universe, claiming that the previous week never happened. This cycle would repeat every week, and they could always claim that they were never actually wrong, we just remember them being wrong, but that never happened. After all, those are just our pre-imposed false memories of before the universe existed. Now here's something which might get some Christians riled up. Suppose that the Christian God is real. Now suppose that God is omnipotent and omniscient with one exception: All of His power will disappear next Thursday at noon, and even He doesn't know it. There is no way for Him to know this, and there is no way for Him to stop it from happening. Christians, you cannot prove this wrong. Not even next Thursday at noon, because who is to say that you will immediately recognize all of God's power as gone. After all, all of His recent actions will still be in effect.

Here are some challenges:

  1. Define existence, and explain why you think that your definition is reasonable. As I pointed out here, the dictionary definition won't cut it.
  2. If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?
  3. Christians: Can you refute what I said regarding the possibility that God will lose all of His power next Thursday at noon? You may want to start with challenge 1 for this.
Good luck!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
31 5
Spiritual logicism is my term for my philosophy of the universe. I hope to be able to get into some interesting discussions about it and the nature of reality generally here. There is a lot to unpack, so I suggest reading this a little bit at a time, and feel free to comment and specific parts of it without having read the whole thing. I don't want to bore you!

Spiritual logicism

Part 1: The basic idea.

Logicism is a pre-existing philosophy of mathematics. (We'll get back to reality in general momentarily.) I'm not going to define it here, but instead recommend reading this webpage for more information. The reason I omit the definition is that I would instead like to present my own version of logicism somewhat strengthened from even strong logicism: All of mathematics is an extension of logic. Not just certain fields, and not just mathematical truth, all of mathematics. This still isn't too radical of an idea, but spiritual logicism is, in my experience, basically unheard of. Here is my definition:

Spiritual logicism: The belief that spiritual truths about the universe can be understood as, and fundamentally are, an extension of abstract logic. An extension of logicism to the nature of reality.

Part 2: Why?

One could reasonably ask how on earth I would come to such a conclusion. As such, I don't just want to go straight to explaining the ramifications of such a belief system, but rather want to begin by explaining how I came to believe what I do. I have always wanted to understand the deeper truth about the universe, and having a mathematical/logical background I realized that to conclude anything, I would need at least one assumption. My goal, however, was to minimize assumptions. In the end, I settled on one and only one assumption, but it soon became clear just how vast the implications were. I present, the truth premise:

The truth premise: There is a valid and complete notion of truth.

Despite how short it is, there is a lot to unpack. First of all, there is an issue here: The truth premise asserts itself as true, before any sort of notion of truth has been established. My resolution to this: Ignore it. Performing some sort of bootstrap here is entirely necessary. We effectively just accept the truth premise as if it has already been established as true within the valid and complete notion of truth that it assures the existence of. Now let's break down what the truth premise really means. There are two key words: Valid and complete.

Valid: Consistent and sound.

Complete: Capable of assigning every objective and meaningful statement a truth value of true or false.

Consistent: Containing no contradiction. No statement is both true and false.

You may have noticed that I have omitted the definition of soundness. In logic, the soundness of a set of axioms means that they imply only true results. The issue here is that we are trying to obtain a notion of truth in the first place. Soundness as it is used here is to say that if there is any sort of underlying truth structure within the universe, this notion of truth is consistent not only with itself, but with this underlying truth structure. It is not clear what such a structure would be, but nonetheless it is an important precaution. Now, why should we accept the truth premise? Put simply: We need it. Without the truth premise, it is impossible to conclude anything. Let's suppose we put together some other set of assumptions that did not include the truth premise. Without the truth premise, an assertion of their truth wouldn't even be meaningful. We need a meaningful notion of truth as described in the truth premise. If someone wants to see it, I will explain why each assumption on the notion of truth is necessary for meaningful deductions to be made, but for now I will omit the specifics. Now, reasonably, we should be able to define binary functions (such as and, or, not, etc.) and have a meaningful notion of certain statements about them being true. Let's define f to be the or operation for an example. Then f(0,0) = 0, f(0, 1) = 1, f(1, 0) = 1, and f(1, 1) = 1. Reasonably, these should all by definition be true statements. This could be considered to fall under the soundness condition, where, for an example, f(0, 0) = 0 must be considered to be true, because the value of f(0, 0) is by definition 0. Replacing 0 and 1 with the truth values T and F we can rewrite these values as f(F, F) = F, f(F, T) = T, f(T, F) = T, f(T, T) = T. We now get propositional logic. We can show, for example, that P implies P or Q. (I can't type logical connectives, so I'll just use words.) We create a truth table:

P = F, Q = F: P or Q = F or F = F, P implies P or Q = F implies F = T.
P = T, Q = F: P or Q = T or F = T, P implies P or Q = T implies T = T.
P = F, Q = T: P or Q = F or T = T, P implies P or Q = F implies T = T.
P = T, Q = T: P or Q = T or T = T, P implies P or Q = T implies T = T.

So in all cases P implies P or Q is true. At this point, we have seen that any notion of truth as in the truth premise should include propositional logic, and thus that we can consider the axioms of propositional logic can be considered a part of our definition of truth. It is possible that this notion of truth, to satisfy completeness, needs to include other axioms. Recall that completeness requires that our notion of truth assigns true or false to every "meaningful and objective" statement. To uncover what this means for our notion of truth, let's take a quick detour to another belief. Some people hold the belief that they are imagining the entire universe, and that it is all within their head. While this doesn't seem particularly reasonable, we can't prove them wrong with empirical evidence. The key thing to realize is that in different contexts, there are different reasonable/useful assumptions. Another example would be mathematics, in which we (at least in most areas of math) assume the nine axioms of ZFC. In conclusion, the notion of truth described in the truth premise can be thought of as all possible extensions of propositional logic, where we must specify the context (which extension it is in reference to) of any non-tautological truth.

Part 3: Axiomatization and conceptualization.

We left off with the conclusion that truth can be viewed as all possible extensions of propositional logic. Namely, with certain additional axioms, we should be able to describe our own reality. This leads us to the axiomatization principle:

The axiomatization principle: The reality we live in can be entirely described by a set of axioms.

At this point, spiritual logicism is an obvious conclusion. So what are these mysterious axioms? Well, we don't know, but one could view science as the field which searches for this answer. Science attempts to find the laws by which the universe abides by studying it from the inside. Our best guess at the moment is probably M-theory. The laws of M-theory can be seen as a candidate for the set of axioms which define our universe. This notion of truth also has another critical implication. Concepts separate from reality are just as real as it, so long as they are well-defined. One such example is math. The reason math is an important example is that it also relates to our reality. This demonstrates how concepts separate from our reality being just as real as it could potentially have some very big implications. At this point, we approach the realm of more specific conclusions about the nature of reality, of which there are many, so I will leave it at this for now, as this has gone on long enough.

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
59 10
Solipsism generally holds that only the self can be known to exist. But just because something is possible does not mean it is likely. If solipsism is false, it makes sense that the universe seems to have consistent laws and that past experiences are consistent with future experiences. Dreams, in contrast, barely make any sense and rarely remain consistent. So if humans were brains in a vat, I think the probability of our experiences being consistent with an outward reality would be very low.

I have the same doubts about the zombie theory. If your brain is generating consciousness, it seems unlikely that it would be the only brain to do so. It also seems unlikely that a non-conscious brain would lie and say that it was conscious, or be somehow programmed to act outwardly like a conscious mind. Even if this is a non-physicalist correlating effect, whatever external cause is putting minds into brains probably wouldn't stop with one individual.

You might be on the Truman Show, or the victim of some elaborate government conspiracy, but neither of those things is very likely. I'm not sure how solipsism is more significant than any other theory that is technically possible but very unlikely.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
29 8
What is your favorite argument for the existence of God? Why is it your favorite argument? What are some objections to this argument and how do you deal with them?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
436 40
I am about ten days out from the closing of the voting period for my debate on God's existence - "There is no God." If you have time to read through it and vote on it, that would be much appreciated!

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
3 3
Does anybody disagree?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
255 19
If I don't want to answer, I won't answer.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Personal
39 13
How do you QUANTIFY intentions?
This isn't a deposition. You got to get to the point.
Yes, you've convinced me that any legal or moral framework that relies on detecting INTENTIONS is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft.

By your "consequentialist" view, nobody should ever be convicted of accidentally or unintentionally committing a crime.

Isn't that one of the KEY legal obstacles to convicting TRUMP of many of his CRIMES?

It's been argued that the Georgia phone call was NOT criminal if TRUMP sincerely believes that he really and truly WON.

This would magically transform the phone call from being an implicit demand for falsifying vote tallies into an honest and sincere plea for "THE TRUTH".

ALSO,

There was a case a few years ago where a police officer accidentally entered a neighbor's apartment, mistakenly thinking it was their own apartment and mistook their neighbor for an INTRUDER and shot them dead.

Their legal defense argued that it was not a crime because the officer sincerely believed their neighbor was an intruder.

Police are protected by a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" which states that (IFF) the officer believed at the time that what they were doing was perfectly legal, (THEN) their case can be dismissed. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
100 9
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

Stage 2

1. The universe is the totality of all time space and matter.

2. Whatever caused time space and matter must be timeless,  space less,  and immaterial. 

3. Therefore something immaterial,  timeless,  and space less caused the universe,  and these properties are said of God. 

4. Therefore we conclude God exists. 

Obviously a lot to unpack and defend, 

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
11 10
P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA. 


P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth. 

P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.

P4. Therefore if atheism is true,  there is no justification for believing anything to be true.

P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.  

P6. Therefore atheism is false.



Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
204 19
Your public reputation is your most valuable asset.

So there should be laws that keep people from saying mean things about each other in public.

Especially famous people.

Nobody should be able to use a photograph of you or talk about you ("use your name or your corporation's name as click-bait") WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS CONSENT.

Celebrities and other public figures are constantly being accused of "not caring" about things like "the environment" and or "justice" and the like.

These kinds of claims are LIBELOUS SLANDER AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

Caring about the "right" or "wrong" things is not a crime yet.

And since it is an indisputable fact that people don't know the inner thoughts (actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea) of the people they hate, they should not be allowed to speak publicly on the matter without facing steep fines and penalties.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
93 5
Causality: The idea that every event has a cause

Free will: The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.[https://www.lexico.com/definition/free_will]


Does causality undermnine free will?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
50 6
I cooked this little argument up at work the other day.  Most axiological arguments tend to use the idea of objective morality to point to God,  which is great.  However I wanted to go a slightly different route and explore the idea of moral authority. 


Please note this one is a little long so stay with me,  and this is still VERY much in the baby stages 👶 



P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority.  (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)

P2. Human societies, generally speaking,  dish out moral commands. 


P3. Human societies at times command morally egregious things as though they were moral (i.e the orders of Nazi Germany,  etc.)

P4. Therefore the innate "moralness" or "immoral-ness" of any particular moral command is not derived from strictly human authority. 

P5. Since this is the case all moral commands should be unintelligible 

P6. However there are intelligible moral commands


P7. Therefore they are derived from an authority higher than human beings. 

P8. Any issuer of moral commands must be capable of reasoning and using intellect. 

P9. A higher authority that issues moral commands to humans exists,  and has the capacity to reason and make moral judgments. In a word,  a mind. 

P10. This issuer of commands cannot be subject to a higher authority, if said issuer were,  for all we know,  that authority's commands could contradict our intelligent issuer's commands,  rendering them unintelligible,  leaving us back to p5.  But since there are intelligible commands,  the one issuing them must be the highest authority. 

P11. A rational mind that is not subject to a greater authority and issues moral commands exists.  All men call this Mind God. 

P12. Therefore God exists 



Thoughts?






Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
105 15
P1. There is no possible world where the truthfulness of universals are falsified (i.e. no state of affairs where 2 plus 2 equals 9, or triangles have four sides)

P2. If universals are true across all possible worlds, they are not dependent on human cognition. 

P3. If they are not dependent  on human cognition,  they are dependent on another cognition.  Namely a universal cognition. 

P4. A universal cognition that apprehends the truth value of all necessary propositions (universals) can apprehend the truth value of all particular and contigent propositions. 

P5. Any mind that apprehends the truth value of all propositions is omniscient. 


P6. An omniscient mind exists. 

P7. Therefore God exists. 




Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
27 15
The modal ontological argument as developed by philosopher Alvin Plantinga:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being* (mgb for short) exists. 

2. An mgb exists in some possible world.

3. If an mgb exists in one possible  world, then an mgb exists in all possible worlds.

4. An mgb exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore God exists. 

*for our purposes an mgb is defined as a being that possesses all great making properties,  and lacks no great making property.  


Out of all the classical theistic arguments,  this one is my personal favorite. Albeit, somewhat paradoxically,  although I  believe it to be a sound proof , it seems to be the less convincing for many people. 


I realize each premise needs expounding,  hence the reason I started the thread. This thread is open for discussion to anyone. Atheists are welcomed and encouraged to comment. 



Thank you 
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
86 12
The "far-right" and the "far-left" both distrust the banksters.

The "far-left" and the "far-right" both distrust centralized government.

The "far-right" and the "far-left" both distrust the globalists.

The "far-left" and the "far-right" both distrust the **CORPORATE MOBSTERS**.

The globalist-banksters don't believe in "communism".

The globalist-banksters promise "communism" but **never** deliver.

IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "BIG GOVERNMENT".

IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "GLOBAL CORPORATIONS".

We are the members of "Do-it-or-DIE" (D-ie, D-ie, Die). 

Do what we say - or we will kill you.

# In 6 minutes and 30 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER

# Skip to 1072 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER
Cults are everywhere.
There are little pieces of cults in all things.
We all have so many of those "mental traps" already.
We just can't see the traps from the inside.

# Skip to 3325 seconds, YOU ARE A CULT MEMBER
Suppose, you, you're, out of work.
You don't have anything to eat.
You look for a job.
It's considered a wonderful thing to get a job.
It wasn't always that way.
You go back to the origins of the Industrial Revolution.
Mid 19th Century.
Take a look at the literature, the working-class literature.
The idea of "having a job" was considered a, a, totally, intolerable assault.
On elementary human dignity and human rights.


# Everything you will ever need to know about politics was explained in 1945,

The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that **FEUDAL HIERARCHY** is "the enemy" (DEMAND HOLACRACY + RCV).

The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that government **promises** are MEANINGLESS.

The "lesson" of ANIMAL-FARM is that whoever controls **"the dogs"** (military-police-cult aged males) can scare everyone else into abject submission (SO THEY CAN LITERALLY GET AWAY WITH MURDER AND OR EPSTEIN).

IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "BIG GOVERNMENT".

IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "GLOBAL CORPORATIONS".

# RADICAL ANTI-CENTRIST PROPAGANDA,

SEARCH **ROKU** TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE" [LINK]
SEARCH **LBRY.TV** FOR "LOGICZOMBIE" [LINK]

### Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random - - WILL cannot be random - - FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences - - FREE is incompatible with WILL.

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
68 11
Admitting that racism is a thing, and calling it racism is an everybody who's actually rational thing
I disagree.

Discrimination is real.

The concept of "race" is fabricated.

Between 1660 and 1690 the RULING CLASS invented the term "WHITE RACE" very specifically as a tool to FRACTIONALIZE poor workers.

The English had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized.

The social position of Africans in the early colonies has been a source of considerable debate. Some scholars have argued that they were separated from European servants and treated differently from the beginning. Later historians, however, have shown that there was no such uniformity in the treatment of Africans. Records indicate that many Africans and their descendants were set free after their periods of servitude. They were able to purchase land and even bought servants and slaves of their own.

Some African men became wealthy tradesmen, craftsmen, or farmers, and their skills were widely recognized. They voted, appeared in courts, engaged in business and commercial dealings, and exercised all the civil rights of other free men. Some free Africans intermarried, and their children suffered little or no special discrimination. Other Africans were poor and lived with other poor men and women; Blacks and whites worked together, drank together, ate together, played together, and frequently ran away together.

Moreover, the poor of all colours protested together against the policies of the government (at least 25 percent of the rebels in Bacon’s Rebellion [1676] were Blacks, both servants and freedmen). The social position of Africans and their descendants for the first six or seven decades of colonial history seems to have been open and fluid and not initially overcast with an ideology of inequality or inferiority.  

The colonial leaders found a solution to both problems: by the 1690s they had divided the restless poor into categories reflecting their origins, homogenizing all Europeans into a “white” category and instituting a system of permanent slavery for Africans, the most vulnerable members of the population.

Between 1660 and 1690, leaders of the Virginia colony began to pass laws and establish practices that provided or sanctioned differential treatment for freed servants whose origins were in Europe. They conscripted poor whites, with whom they had never had interests in common, into the category of free men and made land, tools, animals, and other resources available to them.  [LINK]

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
36 4
(sid) i just wish i could have a REAL conversation for once instead of a poorly disguised battle for dominance.

(sammy) you're describing 100% of conversations (including this one).

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
9 3
A statement does not flicker back and forth between being factual and not being factual based on who is observing it. If you cannot understand the concept of a fact that you cannot personally verify, further conversing is fruitless. Please leave me alone. [**]
If "xbeliefs" are not logically-necessary, I'm not sure what "problem" they're trying to solve. The idea of "the world outside the mind" is a bit strange as an axiom, since we are necessarily trapped in the epistemological prison of the phaneron. In other words, anything strictly "incomprehensible" ("outside the mind") can safely be bundled up within the broad and nebulous category of the noumenon. Why would anyone bother themselves with an undetectable data set?

A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary QUANTA (and emotionally meaningless).

An OPINION must be personal, private, experiential, unfalsifiable, qualitative, indistinguishable from GNOSIS (and emotionally meaningful).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
133 7
ATHEIST =/= CREED
Atheists deny God in one of a few ways. They either see no evidence for God, or they reject the evidence that is offered, or they don't care enough to seek God because they have not examined their beliefs well enough. 
OR, perhaps they believe "YHWH" IS REAL and just don't give a flying flip.

(IFF) the cosmos is controlled by a megalomaniacal lunatic who demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture (THEN) FUCK THAT GUY.

I'D RATHER BE ETERNALLY TORTURED THAN TO SHOW OBSEQUIOUS DEFERENCE TO (human) PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES "PREISTS" AND "PROPHETS" AND "TEACHERS".

(IFF) "YHWH" wants to speak to me (THEN) let them SPEAK.

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
72 10
'Undeniable Pattern of Fraud': MIT Analysis Shows 69,000 Trump Votes Flipped to Biden in Michigan Amidst Contradictory Fact-Checker 'Facts', Michigan Lawsuit With Dominion Whistleblower & More

When the Antrim County Elections Commissioner in Michigan announced that a "tabulating software glitch" had counted 6,000 Trump votes for Biden amidst a flurry of other statistical anomalies in Michigan and other swing states, observers began to speculate that that the "glitch" was actually a feature of this Dominion Voting Systems software being used in 47 additional Michigan counties. Considering the fact that hidden programs used to flip the vote for a chosen candidate have not only existed for decades, but are easy to both create (only 100 lines of code) and upload onto electronic voting machines while remaining virtually undetectable, such a scenario is entirely possible. And given that another glitch in another Michigan county resulting with the very same outcome in a County Commissioner race, erroneously flipping Republican votes to the Democrat opponent causing a now-reversed election upset, it does seem mighty coincidental that multiple such 'glitches' all causing 'errors' that flip R votes to D is certainly highly suspect. And let's not forget Dominion's ties to the Clinton Foundation and a number of other establishment Democrat insiders, posing a number of obvious conflicts of interest.



I GUESS THE REAL QUESTION IS, DO YOU PREFER "STABILITY" OR THE TRUTH?

WE'VE HAD OVER 20 YEARS TO FIX THE EMBARASSINGLY BAD VOTING MACHINES IN THE UNITED STATES.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
74 13
Debate Resolution: "The United States ought to institute a federal jobs guarantee"

PRO:

Speaking from a purely economic perspective (culturally we conflate money with morality), homeless people and prisoners cost the state roughly $20,000.00 per person per year.  School children in the USA receive a subsidy of roughly $15,000.00 per child per year.  Homeless people & prisoners & school children are unproductive members of society (jobless).  It would be a great boost to the economy (culturally we conflate money with morality) if we found some jobs for these individuals (since we also tend to conflate laziness with immorality).

Of course a "jobs guarantee" probably doesn't mean "mandatory labor camps".

CON:

Speaking from a purely economic perspective (culturally we conflate money with morality), a deep, primal fear of becoming homeless and a deep, primal fear of being sent to prison contributes immensely to economic productivity.  This fundamental and essential primal fear is what keeps the working class (80% of the country) going to jobs they hate, overlooking safety violations, taking verbal abuse from customers and managers, and accepting extremely low wages (keeping consumer prices competitive).

If these workers were "guaranteed a job", then they would walk away from these wretched, dead-end, often physically dangerous jobs (with no retirement or health guarantees) and the nation's entrepreneurs would go out of business.  These businesses would probably be replaced by government-run replacements because the government would have a huge surplus of employees due to their "jobs guarantee".  This would lead to a totalitarian state, and everybody knows that totalitarian state = teh evil.

Therefore, "The United States ought to institute a federal jobs guarantee" = "totalitarian state" = evil.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
7 4
I won't go into myself too much here but I'll confess to having experienced genuine depression in my life and during that time, I was the closest to atheist I had been. I was always agnostic overall but what changed was when the nihilism and pure lack of meaning and purpose hit me, infected my brain so much that I wondered why I was alive and didn't want to get out of bed each day and was sad I woke up.

I am serious when I say that this thread is not meant to be about me. I want to truly understand how a round-earth believing atheist can possibly fathom themselves to be anything other than a worthless being on a spinning ball in the middle of nowhere hurtling through infinite nothingness for absolutely no true purpose and that everything good or worthwhile in their life was a ridiculously futile chemical reaction in their brain just deluding them to stupidly think there was any reason to feel fulfilled for it.

This is not made to mock; it's something I, as a Pagan/Taoist thinker find the biggest drive away from even indulging in the notion that there is/are no real deity/ies or spiritual realm in life that give my morally good actions meaning and anything I ever did a permanent, pure and irrefutable purpose as at the very least I impressed the god(dess)/(e)s watching.



Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
88 17
I'm a firm believer of free will. 

Determinism, as suggested by countless philosophers suggests that our minds are simply predictable, our behavior is literally determined from the start. But, who determines our behavior in the first place? Philosophers state that there's external and internal forces that we can't possibly interfere with. If we can not interfere with them, that means, to us, they do not exist. We have no way of proving if they do exist or do not. So, why pretend that they have power? Determinism is further contradicted by the legal and moral obligations of a human being. True, parents have control over children. But, do they really? A child has the free will to run away. 

Free will is literally mastered by happiness and true justification within a human mind. Once you've achieved a true moral compass, you're free from the philosopher's version of "determinism", and you do have free will. Evil ones are easier to predict that moral ones.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
161 14
BREONNA TAYLOR - We've been brainwashed again. On both sides.

I normally try and steer-clear of any "topic of the week" and I didn't even look into any of this until today.

I just thought, "cops killed somebody and some people think it was justified and some people don't" it seems like "facts-don't-matter" anymore, so who cares?

# CONCLUSIONS.
###
THIS IS A MASSIVE FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE.

THE PATRIOT ACT GIVES POLICE VAST, SWEEPING, AND VIRTUALLY UNFETTERED SURVEILLANCE POWERS.

(IFF) THE POLICE HAD NARROWED THE SUSPECT'S LOCATION TO ONLY 2 LIKELY LOCATIONS, WHY DID THEY NOT SIMPLY WAIT FOR THE SUSPECT TO WALK OUTSIDE INTO AN AMBUSH?  OR WHY DID THEY NOT SIMPLY PLACE A TRACKER ON THEIR VEHICLE AND AMBUSH THEM (IN PLAINCLOTHES) AS THEY CARRY GROCERIES BACK TO THEIR CAR?

AND IF 3 GUYS IN **PLAINCLOTHES** STARTED BANGING ON MY DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT YELLING "THIS IS THE POLICE" I WOULDN'T BELIEVE THEM.

PRO TIP:  I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN AND IT WASN'T "THE POLICE" AT ALL.

Here are the **REAL-TRUE-FACTS**.

BREONNA TAYLOR = INNOCENT

KENNETH WALKER = INNOCENT

JONATHAN MATTINGLY = INNOCENT

BRETT HANKISON = INNOCENT (of manslaughter)

MYLES COSGROVE = INNOCENT

# How the FUCK can they all be innocent you ask??
###
It's a simple matter of brainwashing.

Imagine a blind intersection.

Now imagine that automobile accidents happen at this blind intersection.

All the time.

Every year 300 people die at this blind intersection.

WHO DO YOU BLAME FOR THE ACCIDENT(S)??

YOU ARE BRAINWASHED TO ALWAYS BLAME THE DRIVER(S).

### Nobody ever seems to ask, "who designed this idiotic blind intersection?"
###

We're brainwashed to believe there is always a human, directly involved with the "accident" that "should have" somehow "acted differently" and is somehow "morally inferior" and worthy of blame and "deserves" to be punished or even crippled (or killed).

"well, she shouldn't have been friends with a drug-dealer" I've actually heard someone say.

In some "rare" cases we say "both drivers were at-fault" but NEVER DO WE EVEN CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT **NONE** WERE AT-FAULT.

THERE MUST BE A "GOOD GUY" AND A "BAD GUY".

THERE MUST BE A "HERO" AND THERE MUST BE A "VILLIAN".

### REAL-TRUE-FACTS:
###
12:40 AM MARCH 13TH 2020 - three plainclothes officers serve a no-knock warrant.

FULL STOP.

WHY??

Because Breonna Taylor was listed as a telephone contact and her apartment's mailing address was listed by Jamarcus Glover who was currently under investigation and wanted by police.  Spoiler alert:  Jamarcus Glover was actually arrested (10 miles away, at his home) at almost the exact same time that Breonna Taylor was shot to death.

Detective Joshua Jaynes, who obtained the search warrant for Taylor’s apartment, has also been **reassigned** by the department’s leadership **[NOT CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME]**. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)

The search warrant for Taylor and her home explicitly identified her and her address. The Louisville police were not there by mistake. They believed that Taylor had ties to [Jamarcus] Glover **[GUILT-BY-ASSOCIATION]**, one of the main suspects in the [DRUG RELATED] investigation. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)


# Police located their main suspect before going into Taylor’s home
###
### 2 WARRANTS WERE SERVED SIMULTANEOUSLY AND THE "TARGET" JAMARCUS GLOVER WAS ARRESTED WITHOUT BLOODSHED AT HIS HOME.  RENDERING ANY "SEARCH" FOR JAMARCUS GLOVER AT BREONNA TAYLOR'S APARTMENT UNNECESSARY.
###
But even if [Jamarcus] Glover was not in custody before officers forced their way into Taylor’s home, based on statements by Mattingly, police still likely **knew where he was** at that time, as attorneys for Taylor’s family assert. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)

**Judge Mary Shaw** has refused to address the case and her decision to sign the search warrant with The Courier Journal, but she has since told The New York Times she “asked needed questions of the officer, reviewed the affidavits prepared for each warrant and subsequently made the probable-cause determination required of me by law.” [NO DETAILS PROVIDED]  [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)

Louisville’s U.S. postal inspector, Tony Gooden, told WDRB News in May that a different agency (which he did not identify) had asked in January to look into whether Taylor’s home was receiving suspicious mail. The office had concluded that the apartment was not, Gooden said. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)

Additionally, though Taylor and Glover once dated, Glover said they were no longer in touch before her death. There is no evidence Glover was living in Taylor’s apartment. [LINK](https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20200924/fact-checking-8-myths-in-breonna-taylor-case-was-she-asleep-when-police-shot-her-is-there-body-cam-footage)


# CONCLUSIONS.
###
THIS IS A MASSIVE FAILURE OF INTELLIGENCE.

THE PATRIOT ACT GIVES POLICE VAST, SWEEPING, AND VIRTUALLY UNFETTERED SURVEILLANCE POWERS.

(IFF) THE POLICE HAD NARROWED THE SUSPECT'S LOCATION TO ONLY 2 LIKELY LOCATIONS, WHY DID THEY NOT SIMPLY WAIT FOR THE SUSPECT TO WALK OUTSIDE INTO AN AMBUSH?  OR WHY DID THEY NOT SIMPLY PLACE A TRACKER ON THEIR VEHICLE AND AMBUSH THEM (IN PLAINCLOTHES) AS THEY CARRY GROCERIES BACK TO THEIR CAR?

AND IF 3 GUYS IN **PLAINCLOTHES** STARTED BANGING ON MY DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT YELLING "THIS IS THE POLICE" I WOULDN'T BELIEVE THEM.

PRO TIP:  I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN AND IT WASN'T "THE POLICE" AT ALL.

I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

At what point did we begin to conflate MONEY with MORALITY?

# NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE OR A JUDGE, THEY CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU

# NEVER CONVICT PEOPLE CHARGED WITH LAWS YOU DISAGREE WITH

### Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
###
Essential HIVE links,

I WILL UPVOTE ANY AND ALL COMMENTS ON THIS POST, 1 UPVOTE PER ACCOUNT.  PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A "∴"

Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero).  In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy).  Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".


<center>
### +proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.</center>
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
45 8
I believe the only measure of an argument should be your ability to convince an opponent.

By removing the "audience" from the equation, you automatically get a much more honest discussion and exploration of opposing ideas. It would also save a lot of time for the moderators sifting through long and detailed "reasons for vote". I'm sure a lot of "self-moderated" debates would end in a tie, but I don't see that as a "problem".

At the end of each debate, each participant would get 1 point for participation and have the option of awarding up to 3 additional points to their opponent. These points would simply accumulate over time and would count towards a debater's "Civil Debate" tally. Alternatively you might consider splitting their score into three parts ("1/1/1") where the first number is the number of "Civil Debates" they've participated in, the second number is the number of points they've received from other players and the third number is the number of points they've granted to their opponents.

This system ("1/1/1") would allow you to know, at a glance, how experienced they are in this particular debate format, how convincing they are generally considered by their opponents, and how receptive and or generous they are (making them a more attractive opponent).

Self-moderating debates are an interesting idea. In an ideal world, where everyone is willing to honestly consider other people's ideas, it would work well. In the world we're actually in, I see some problems with it. A lot of people here are more interested in debating as a competition  (which is fine). The current system lends itself to this, with win records and ratings. Adding self-moderating debates where the goal is to convince and to learn wouldn't jive well with that system. Debaters interested only in winning probably wouldn't assign a fair number of points to their opponents. On the other hand, self-moderating debates might appeal more to people like UpholdingTheFaith, who want a more discussion based format than a formal debate. I'm not sure how the two formats would mix. It could work if self-moderating debates were unrated or in their own rating system,  but those solutions seem clunky to me.

I would be perfectly happy with an "unranked" status for "self-moderated" debates.

At the same time, I think it would be **useful** to know how charitable (open-minded) a potential debate partner has been in the past.

The main reason I no longer participate in the current debate system is because most of my debates go **unvoted** on.

The other reason I no longer participate in the current debate system is because I disagree with the RFD rules and most of the judge's OPINIONS.

A "self-moderated" debate might end in a **tie**, but it will never go "unvoted" and if there is any dispute about "who won", at least both sides are on **equal footing** and it doesn't devolve into "who has the most friends" or "who's the most popular with the judges".

And just to be perfectly clear, the **current system** and current rules and ranking system would be **100% UNCHANGED** by this proposal. [***](https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5-platform-development?page=56&post_number=1378)

SEARCH **ROKU** TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"

# THE PRIMARY USE-CASE FOR CIVIL DEBATE
###
I've seen a lot of chatter lately from very intelligent individuals who believe "the marketplace of ideas" HAS FAILED.

There are a **shocking** number of calls to "ban" or at least "suppress", "warning label", "shadow ban" "DANGEROUS IDEAS" and or otherwise hyper-promote "OFFICIAL NARRITIVES" (VERIFIED BY "OFFICIAL" "government approved" FACT-CHECKERS).

Even by **self-described** "rational skeptics", "atheists", "free-thinkers", and "libertarians".

For example, "Rational Disconnect" and Penn Jillette and even Lucien Greaves have stated plainly that unfettered "free speech" is a "DANGEROUS" ideology with "no obvious solution".

**I STRONGLY DISAGREE.**

THE "PROBLEM" ISN'T MISINFORMATION, FAKE NEWS, AND OR "DANGEROUS" IDEAS.

THE "PROBLEM" IS THE FORMAT.

### THE "PROBLEM" IS THE FRAMEWORK OF THE DEBATE ITSELF.
###
THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T MADE ANY EFFORT TO CLEARLY DISTINGUISH FACT FROM OPINION.

THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE ARE NEVER FOCUSED ON **CONVINCING** THEIR OPPONENTS.

THE "PROBLEM" IS THAT PEOPLE ARE ONLY IN A **RUSH-TO-DISQUALIFY** ANYONE AND EVERYONE THEY DISAGREE WITH (CANCEL CULTURE).

### THOUGHT =/= CRIME
###

IT IS RIDICULOUSLY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A FACT IS.

A FACT MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY QUANTA (EMOTIONALLY MEANINGLESS).

**AN OPINION IS ANYTHING THAT IS NOT A FACT.**

THIS INCLUDES ALL SCIENTIFIC **CONCLUSIONS**.

FLAT-EARTH IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"

it's an opinion.

QANON IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"

it's an opinion.

RELIGION IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"

it's an opinion.

HATE SPEECH IS NOT A "DANGEROUS IDEA"

it's an opinion.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU DISAGREE.

# I SAID IT FIRST.
JOIN THE CREATIVE COMMONS ZERO PROJECT BY COPYING THIS CONTENT AND CLAIMING IT AS YOUR OWN.  **COPYRIGHT = CENSORSHIP.**  STOP PAYING CORPORATE GOONS FOR THEIR STORIES AND IMAGES.  STOP DEFENDING CORPORATE GOONS FOR FREE.  **MORALITY =/= MONEY.**

I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

At what point did we begin to conflate MONEY with MORALITY?

# NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE OR A JUDGE, THEY CAN LEGALLY LIE TO YOU


# NEVER CONVICT PEOPLE CHARGED WITH LAWS YOU DISAGREE WITH


### Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
###
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.


Essential HIVE links,

I WILL UPVOTE ANY AND ALL COMMENTS ON THIS POST, 1 UPVOTE PER ACCOUNT.  PLEASE FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A "∴"

Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero).  In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy).  Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".



+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
5 4
HUNTER BIDEN, ALL SMOKE AND NO FIRE?

I keep hearing that "the REAL story is being censored".

Please share any information you might have on the subject.

President Trump on Sunday said the damning information contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop about his business dealings in Ukraine – as The Post revealed last week – is the “REAL DEAL” and cannot be denied.

“Hunter Biden’s laptop is a disaster for the entire Biden family, but especially for his father, Joe. It is now a proven fact, and cannot be denied, that all of that info is the REAL DEAL,” the president wrote on Twitter. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
34 6
If you attack (censor/demonize) people for saying itsoktobeblank, you are contributing to their radicalization. By excluding them from the conversation, you are forcing them into a toxic echo-chamber. If you are unable to acknowledge that you can agree with some points a person makes while disagreeing with other points a person makes, instead of accepting or rejecting them wholesale, then you are no longer a skeptical-free-thinker, and you are instead an insular "arbiter of truth" advocating censorship of people and ideas you happen to disagree with.

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
8 4
Gersonides (Levi ben Gershom, Ralbag, 1288-1344) also explains the tenth commandment as active planning (Exod 20:14):

וענין החמדה הוא שישתדל שיהיו לו, כאילו תאמר שיתן ממון לרעהו, שיגרש אשתו כדי שישאנה, או שימכור לו עבדו ואמתו ושורו וחמורו או אחד משאר קניניו, כי זאת היא תכונה רעה מאד להשתדל שיֵצאו קניני רעהו מתחת ידו אם לא יתרצה מעצמו למוכרם ולהוציאם מתחת ידו.
 
The meaning of “covet” is to attempt to attain something from one’s neighbor, for example, to offer him money to divorce his wife so that he can marry her, or to sell him his slave or his ox or his donkey or any other piece of his property. This is a very evil characteristic, to attempt to take away one’s neighbor’s possessions when he himself does not wish to sell them and part with them.
 
וכבר למדנו שהחמדה אינה בלב לבד, אבל יש עמה מעשה, ממה שאמרה התורה: ׳לא תחמֹד כסף וזהב עליהם ולקחת לך׳. ואמר עוד: ׳ולא יחמֹד איש את ארצך בעלֹתך לראות׳  — רוצה לומר שלא ישתדל איש לקחת אותה בעלותך לרגל; וכן אמר: ׳וחמדו שדות וגזלו׳.
 
We already know that coveting is not just in one’s heart, but that it entails some action from what is said in the Torah “you shall not covet the silver and gold on them and keep it for yourselves” (Deut 7:25). Similarly, [the Torah] says: “no one will covet your land when you go up to appear” (Exod 34:24), meaning to say, that no man will try to take it when you go up for pilgrimage. And [the Bible] says: “They covet fields, and seize them” (Micah 2:2).
 
ולזה לא יהיה עובר על לאו זה אם לא עשה מעשה באופן שיהיה לו הדבר שיחמוד.
 
Hence, we infer that one does not violate the prohibition if one does not actually do something in order to obtain the coveted object.

Thus, for Gersonides, the Rabbinic interpretation is the simple meaning of the text. In the Bible, coveting refers to the first step in the process of taking something from one’s fellow that is his/hers and not yours. Thus, it is not the flickering thought of coveting that is forbidden here, but rather when one seriously begins to plan how to actualize the sinful thought. [LINK]
And another interesting interpretation of "covet" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaFca9vZvn8
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
28 6
One personal conclusion I have made is that Atheists have far too much Faith for me, to be able to declare that there is no Creator, while breathing.
The Christians are the original Atheists.

In primal cultures, competing tribes would always argue, "our gods are more powerful than your gods".

The Christians changed this to, "your gods don't even exist", "you're all just superstitious idiots".

Atheists believe exactly what the Christians believe regarding the existence of gods, they just happen to believe in one less.

I'm not sure I'd call that "faith".

I mean, how much "faith" does it take to NOT-believe in Santa Claus?

How much "faith" does it take to NOT-believe in Nanabozho?

The (self-described) Atheists that I've spoken to often complain that their position is often misunderstood.

Calling someone by what they're NOT is a rather peculiar phenomenon.

It would be like everyone calling you a "non-astronaut" or a "non-stamp-collector".

MOST (but not all) people who call themselves "Atheist" try to make it clear that they are NOT saying there is NO POSSIBLE GOD(S).  Instead, they're simply asserting that there is no compelling evidence of any SPECIFIC GOD(S).

In the same way it takes no "faith" to disbelieve in Russell's Teapot.

And often, the word "GOD" is an implicit reference to the "YHWH", and that one is particularly incoherent.

That isn't to say that Atheists are free of superstition.

A frightening number of Atheists still believe in the ridiculous concept of "freewill".

And they don't even have the good sense to call that "faith", they just call it "common sense".


I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
90 8
Judge Nukes Ill. Lockdown: Pritzker 'Had No Authority' to Restrict Movement and Close Businesses

Illinois Circuit Court Judge Mike McHaney ruled on Thursday that Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois had no lawful authority to declare endless disasters past the initial thirty days. Ruling on a lawsuit filed by State House Rep. Darren Bailey (R-Ill.), Judge McHaney wrote, “The court declares that Defendant had no constitutional authority as Governor to restrict a citizen’s movement or activities and/or forcibly close business premises in EO 32.” [LINK](https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/megan-fox/2020/07/02/judge-nukes-ill-lockdown-pritzker-had-no-authority-to-restrict-movement-and-close-businesses-n600395)

SERMON BANNED FROM YOUTUBE

Even if you're not a christian, you should give this video a look.

Near the end of May, the governor of Illinois declared that he was going to charge business owners that opened before he says they can open with misdemeanors, he was going to actually make them into criminals.  The next day, one lone county, called Madison county, way out in western Illinois, assembled their county board together, and put out a proclamation declaring that they would NOT obey the governor, and then they would protect the businessmen within their county, that they can open and they'll use all the power at their hands to protect them from the governor and the state.  One lone county.  The very next day, the Illinois state police put out a press release saying they would NOT arrest anyone who opens their business and charge them as the governor has ordered.  And the very next day after that, the governor rescinded his order.  Amen.  Our founding fathers wanted it, so if one branch of government began to play the tyrant, the other branches of government would resist that branch.  It's called "checks and balances".

For example, the governor here in Wisconsin was checked, by our supreme court, and all his tyranny was ended mid May.  Even the lame GOP legislature, that brought the court action was chagrined by the court, as the court ended IT ALL.  While the GOP legislature, in good GOP fashion, just wanted to be able to regulate the evil [tyranny].  Our state supreme court ENDED IT ALL.  So governor Evers [democrat] now has the counties and municipalities doing his dirty work, this is seen and reported in the Wisconsin counties association.  A website you should all be familiar with, all these counties coming up with the same idea, very draconian measures regarding the strength they want to give to their "health officials".  Including POLICING POWERS.  Yeah, they all just came up with that on their own?  No, they all work together and you know what, most of these people that are in county government, they're like most Americans. They're only in there for their own self-aggrandizement. 

DHS 145 is the applicable statute, 145.06 paragraph 2 states, "The state has to declare the individual contagious by a medical authority", then 145.06 paragraph 4 gives 7 options for the state to pursue if someone is contagious, NONE of them includes forcing them to wear a mask.


AND EVEN OUR CHRISTIAN FRIENDS ARE STARTING TO BECOME CONCERNED.

Skip to 1209 seconds,

Click to watch 43 seconds,

I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.

Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero).  In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy).  Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".

1,000 HIVE ($200.00 USD) prize pool for amateur writers, artists, and musicians - theme is "Cyber Pirates versus Werewolf Ninjas" - [LINK](https://hive.blog/hive-171744/@logiczombie/1-000-00-hive-art-music-writing-contest-cyber-pirates-versus-werewolf-ninjas)


+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.




Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
105 10
Here's a little thought experiment I've been playing with:


1. The universe at a quantum level shows properties of "emerging", that is, at fundamental level, matter behaves like information in a computer code.

2. It is quite possible the universe is a computer simulation on an unimaginable scale

3. If the universe is a computer simulation, it would require a computer simulator.

4. A being that encoded the universe into existence would be able to exercise complete control over this simulation

5. Such a being could be considered omnipotent.

6. A being outside the simulation would not be subject to it's nature, and possess another nature entirely. A being of this nature could be considered ultimate reality

7. An omnipotent ultimate reality is God.


Therefore God exists.

Any thoughts? What do you agree with? What do you disagree? Thank

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
42 10
The "reality" of the situation is much more fundamental.

A FEUDAL HIERARCHY will always use FEAR to tighten its collective stranglehold on citizens.

A FEUDAL HIERARCHY will always use FEAR in order to con citizens into "voluntarily" giving up their constitutional rights.

The lockdown may or may not be based on "nothing".

But that's actually purely incidental (moot, red-herring).

Even (IFF) the "deadly" SARS-2 is "really real" (THEN) the government STILL has ZERO authority to force people to stay in their homes and or deny them the right to free assembly and or force them to wear protective clothing and or wash their hands.

There is ZERO authority for any of these "emergency" "measures".

This would be TRUE even if we were in the middle of a full blown ZOMBIE OUTBREAK.

THE PLAN, in 20 minutes,

Bill Gates, the World Health Organization and the World Bank are working with AADHAAR to create a worldwide unique digital ID for every human on the planet.  **This is not a "conspiracy theory".**  This is already happening.  This unique digital ID will allow any "criminals" (dissidents, protesters) to be automatically frozen out of the CASHLESS global banking system.  If you get BLACKLISTED you will lose access to your purely digital money in your purely digital bank.  You will also be frozen out of the internet, so you will not be able to even look for a job.  And even if you manage to find a job locally, nobody will hire you without scanning your digital ID for a "non-criminal" (non-dissident, non-protester) status.

THE EVENT, in 15 minutes,

From 2018 (this is not new):

This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour.  They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs.  But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless?  What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader?  The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew.  Or making the guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival.  Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers - if that technology could be developed in time.

"TWO PARTY" = ONE PARTY

SOCIALISM = CAPITALISM

BLACK = WHITE

We really need to stop bickering about "liberals" and "conservatives" and "SJWs" and "BLM" and "MAGA".

The REAL OWNERS are just pitting us against each other, distracting us with "scary criminals" and idiotic "elections" which they're fully in control of regardless of who you vote for.

We are already living in a POLICE STATE.

WE MUST DEMAND RCV.

Here's the problem,

We currently live in a society where a co-worker can drop their bank debit card in your car, and then call the police and report their card stolen, and describe your vehicle.

Then you can be pulled over and searched and when the lost card is discovered, you will be taken by police and your automobile impounded.  And they take your cell phone, so if you don't have any phone numbers memorized, or if the person you call doesn't happen to answer the phone, you're SOL.

You can be held "pending trial" for months and so they tell you, if you sign some papers they'll let you go home, I'm sure this is all a big misunderstanding.

But those papers happen to be a confession, and that allows a judge to make a summary judgement because you "confessed" there is NO TRIAL.

Then you spend 3 years under guard.

Now you can't even get a decent job because almost nobody will even consider hiring a convicted felon.


The current federal asset forfeiture laws were championed by JOE BIDEN.

Your PROPERTY can be confiscated by the state WITHOUT TRIAL.


THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM.

THE POOR HAVE NO CIVIL RIGHTS.

AND THE POOR AND MIDDLECLASS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER.

YOU ARE **GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.**

I CAN SEND A DEATH SQUAD TO YOUR HOUSE TONIGHT BY SIMPLY TELLING THE SWAT TEAM THAT I THINK YOU'RE A DRUG KINGPIN.

SOMETHING IS SERIOUSLY WRONG.

THE ENTIRE WAR ON DRUGS IS A SCAM CREATED BY THE STATE IN ORDER TO SUPPRESS THE HIPPIES AND BLACK-PANTHERS.

THE ENTIRE WAR ON DRUGS IS A SCAM CREATED TO SUPPRESS ANTI-WAR AND ANTI-GOVERNMENT PROTESTERS.

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A SCAM.

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON CIVIL RIGHTS.

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON PERSONAL PRIVACY.

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

DEMAND HOLOCRACY + RCV.


I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.

Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero).  In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy).  Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
5 2
Click to watch 31 minutes,

The analysis is much more rigorous than I expected, and I agree with most (but not all) of the initial presentation.

However, one glaring omission the speaker makes is a condition called ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY.

ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY is when a person has XY chromosomes (apparently the "gold standard" for "sexgender" which happens to be quite a strange "bald assertion" ontologically, specifically because chromosomes weren't even discovered until the mid 1880s, WTF).

ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY is when a person has XY chromosomes (this speaker might call them "male") and yet, even though they have XY chromosomes, their cells are ANDROGEN INSENSITIVE and therefore are unaffected by that specific hormone and are therefore fully female in physical appearance, bone structure, girly parts and everything else.

In case you missed that.

There are people alive today with XY chromosomes who are physically indistinguishable from female.

They were literally born this way.

Now, you might say "this is extremely rare and therefore can be dismissed out-of-hand as a statistical fluke".

However, because we do not TEST FOR THIS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW "RARE" IT MIGHT BE.

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.

And, to be generous, EVEN IFF it was found to be "extremely rare", it still proves that "sexgender" is not 100% dictated by your magical biblical chromosomes.

AND there is absolutely no way for anyone to KNOW this without violating personal privacy.

There are also cases where a person has what might at first glance appear to be an XY, but the **Y itself** can have a 4th stub (leg) of various lengths (imagine an X with a short leg), the shorter the stub, the more "male" they appear, and the longer the stub, the more "female" they appear.

THE KEY TAKEAWAY FROM ALL OF THIS IS THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY TO DEMAND THAT ANYONE "PROVE" THEIR GENDER.

IT IS A MATTER OF **FUNDAMENTAL** PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

The classical Problem of Identity is and has been and always will be a PRIVATE PERSONAL JOURNEY.

SOCIAL NORMS ARE FLUID.

THERE IS NO REASON TO CODIFY SOCIAL NORMS.

WHAT WE SHOULD CODIFY IS PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

WHAT WE SHOULD CODIFY IS PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

This kind of RED-HERRING petty divisive bickering ("moral outrage") is EXACTLY what our OWNERS need in order to keep the working class and poor people pitted **against** each other.


I watch this once a day - Click to watch 3 minutes,

Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.

Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles (creative commons zero).  In fact, I would prefer that you don't give me "credit" and simply post any choice quotes as your own (to mitigate the genetic fallacy).  Sort of a "Creative Commons (-1)".

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
14 2
Yes, and this is the type of thing i mean when I say we should not let up on the narrative. There is no need to dilute the simple truth that he catered (and probably backmailed) many in positions of power.

I applaud the efforts of people who are trying to "bring this to light" (like @ura-soul and yourself). [***]

However, the main "problem" with this approach is that it focuses too much on "bad actors" and by doing this you divert attention and potentially exculpate "THE SYSTEM" (namely, FEUDAL HIERARCHY).

And without systemic reform (HOLACRACY), we'll just end up with new and "improved" "HEROES" (CON-ARTIST MOBSTERS).

And we don't want to fall into the HERO trap.

Click to watch 4 minutes,

We must insist on a system that mitigates all forms of DEMONIZATION.  [***]

We must insist on a system that protects truly INALIENABLE RIGHTS (rights that nobody can "voluntarily" sign away).

We must insist on a ("legal") system that holds the PRIMARY AXIOMS.

We must insist on a policy of +proHUMAN.

We must insist on a policy of +proFAMILY.

We must insist on a policy of  +proSOVEREIGNTY.

We must insist on a SYSTEM that can be effectively operated by SELF-INTERESTED BABIES (not "heroes").


Special thanks to @practicalthought

Click to watch 3 minutes,

Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time

+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
26 7
When women hate men, it's because they believe (falsely) that men have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.

When "non-whites" hate "whites", it's because they believe (falsely) that "whites" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.

When "liberals" hate "conservatives", it's because they believe (falsely) that "conservatives" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.

And when "whites" hate "non-whites", it's because they believe (falsely) that "non-whites" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.

And when men hate "feminists", it's because they believe (falsely) that "feminists" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.

And when "conservatives" hate "liberals", it's because they believe (falsely) that "liberals" have the "best deal" and the gain of one is at the expense of the other.

ALL OF THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR CORPORATE OWNERS NEED. 

THE POOR FIGHTING EACH OTHER FOR A SLIGHTLY LARGER CUT OF THE TOXIC GARBAGE HEAP.

Special thanks to @oldoneeye

Click to watch 3 minutes,

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
45 11
I'm suggesting that if you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must also believe in some reliable and durable enforcement mechanism that protects those rights.

Otherwise, you're "rights" are going to be stripped from you.

What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens. There are consequences for actions as seen in natural law. Some call it karma. You do good and good happens to you, generally speaking. Rights do not come from people and are not enforced or protected by people.
"inherent" "objective" "morality" is a pervasive myth (brainwashing) that turns our natural instincts (core family dynamic) against our fellow man and twists them in favor of those who hold the levers of power.

It's a con-game that saves them enormous amounts of time and money enforcing their will.

When our owners violate "inherent" "objective" "morality" and we are outraged, but powerless, and our screams of protest are silenced by a boot on our neck (the boot of a fellow peasant) we comfort ourselves with this idiotic myth, "THEY WILL SUFFER IN HELL", and our owners laugh all the way to the bank.

Click to watch 3 minutes,


+proHUMAN +proFAMILY

Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
27 3
I thought I'd discuss the Kalam a bit.. As this seems to be one of the most discussed arguments for the existence of God.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a (transcendent) cause.

Why do you agree or disagree with this argument?

Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
42 15
What are your thoughts on the Chinese room conundrum? Do you believe it disproves the possibility of artificial intelligence being possible?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
41 12